As soon as terrorism becomes definable by law,it will no longer be terrorism.You see the masters of "Legal,ill at ease" ie "Legal Disease"have a special way of presenting fiction as fact,with morality coming a poor second.
Why do you think Guantunamo Bay was created?

It will always boil down to 'One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter' Established oligarchies always define opposition in morally negative terms. The french resistance were without question 'terrorists' based on these definitions.

I support the contention that such laws can and should be applied to industrial action such as the Painters and Dockers of the past, and the Maritime Union actions of holding the country to ransom for their inherited jobs and unbelievably generous pay packets and 'conditions'.

I went for a walk though the Mayfair Ham factory skeleton in Bendigo, a HUGE operation, killed by industrial action, they used to have running card games and all manner of perks and lerks, is it any wonder the company decided it was not viable and shut it down, resulting in all employees losing their jobs.

Some terrorism uses guns and bombs, another type just uses industrial muscle and intimidation, smashed windscreens, burnt out cars, rocks though windows, threatening phone calls. etc.

This is a purely academic argument. No-one is going to define anything, because the status quo is just fine, thanks

When looking at questions like this it is always instructive to examine who benefits from any action, and who benefits from inaction.

Governments have no interest in raising the topic, as any re-examination could only cast doubt on the measures they put in place. No government would take that risk.

Future governments, even if they were elected on a reform platform, would quickly realize that repealing any of the powers arrogated to them by their predecessor would mean giving up power over its people, and no government voluntarily does that.

Lawyers won't benefit from tightening the definition either. There's nothing like a contentious and vaguely worded law to put a spring in their step and another Merc in the garage.

So that's the legislature and the judiciary unlikely to move, who's left?

Errrmmm....

As author of INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on CITIZENSHIP, A book on CD about Australians unduly harmed, the issue of TERRORISM was in particular of concern.
After all, in 1943 the High Court of Australia then ruled that in time of war the Commonwealth of Australia could suspend rights of a person. I for one dispute this, as the Framers of the Constitution made clear the Commonwealth of Australia has no constitutional powers to do so, but even if you were to argue that they have, the notion that there is an UNDECLARED war against Terrorism already has seen balling of the so called TERRORISM BILL, which is to suspend the rights of citizens.
Terrorism for political gains upon the general community is daily pursued by governments. After all, they seek to instil fear in the electors that to vote for another Government may have some disastrous result. They are instilling fear that our nation can be subjected to terrorist attacks of unknown people, regardless if this actually is at all reality, as a way to impose certain conditions and even to go to war against a nation that has done us no harm and likely is neither going to do so.
As such, to define terrorism would be a very dicey matter, as we are daily subjected to it in some form or another.
Despite that every person born within the Commonwealth of Australia is a natural subject of the British Crown and has by this the Australian citizens by having State citizenship, we find that people are terrorized into unconstitutional concentration camps called Commonwealth Detention Centres, and deported as Stateless. This is a form of terrorism conducted by our very Government.

The WAR AGAINST TERRORISM is an unidentifiable war, that is to intimidate and to terrorize citizens and to rob them of their rights! It is some undeclared war that really doesn’t exist. It is an excuse used to rob citizens of their liberty unduly.
People are being held for years in imprisonment without charge, and then released, that in itself is terrorism, just that most people seem to ignore this.

And further;

Judges are in no position to define what TERRORISM is as they are to adjudicate and not to legislate.
It is nonsense to ask a judge to determine the guilt of a person by creating his own definition of terrorism, where the very people elected into the parliament themselves are incapable of doing so.

We committed terrorism upon Iraq, when invading this nation. How then can we deplore any other person to use acts of violence against us in return if they did so? After all Mr. Alexander Downer (Foreign Minister) himself made clear that “sovereignty” is out dated. Indeed, indicated that in certain circumstances Indonesia could mount armed attacks within the Commonwealth of Australia.

Our best defence against terrorism is to show to others that we ourselves will not engage in terrorist conduct!

People demonstrating about some government conduct, no matter how unlawful the government may act, may then face terrorism charges, because of their demonstrations being perceived to interfere with government policies. Many Vietnam demonstrators would in today’s culture likely be charged with terrorism conduct!

We must keep in mind that not just new legislation may serve against criminals, but how they can be manipulated by governments to rob the ordinary peaceful citizen of their legal rights!
Despite that the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act includes our political liberty we are still robbed of those liberties because political parties desire it for their own best will. Terrorism is a generic word that could include any conduct no matter how harmful and then innocent citizens can be loosing their homes in legal cost to defend themselves against thumped up charges!

The word “Terrorism” is a far to wide word, as like “stalking”, where anyone, no matter how innocent under Victoria law can be convicted, just perhaps to write a letter to certain persons that the receiver may deem upsetting, regardless if the intend to harm doesn’t exist. Lets be warned!

Yes,and we have the Terrorism of the "Do Nothings" THE SOBS(The soft Option Brigade)They appeal to our human weakness not to achieve,they protest for it's own sake;refusing to work,making excuses for criminal behaviour in terms of social oppression,justifing stealing ,selling drugs etc.
Then we have the terrorism of our own Govt,creating huge bureauracies,sucking of the public purse in the pretence of helping "The Oppressed " whom they have so created with such subtle dexterity.
And so we have the terrorism of Govt that treats good honest hard working Australians tax cheats and at the same time ignores corporate excesses.
Last but not least, we have corporate terrorism that enslave small business in a symbiotic relationship with Govt.
Who has the courage to evolve a fairer system,when too many think of only short term gain?
A motivated worker is not only very productive,but also becomes consumer who will employ many.He is defined by the socialists as
"A Filthy Capitalist Pig"
Where in lies the truth?

It is both an interesting and worrying subject of discussion, that being defining terrorism and its encompassing societal ills. One man's terrorism is indeed another man freedom fighting... However, if universally accepted codes of conduct, both ethically and morally, as justified and codified by most nations legal systems in the world are brought into this debate, then anything subversive where violence and murder and mayhem are brought upon innocent civilians there is room for debate. Allow me to elaborate: everyone has the right to pursue their ideologies and politically inspired reasoning as long as no harm is brought upon their fellow man. There are numerous ways to bring about change in the world, especially in the form of protest; mass public outcries and passive resistance, not withstanding boycotts, rallies, strikes and sanctions to name but a miniscule handful of ways to bring about reform. When a group founded on rabid fundamentalism insists on taking the lives of innocent civilians to bring home a point, they can rightly be labeled terrorists, plain and simple. It must never be legally justified for acts of terror ALWAYS cross the line and bring nothing but pain, suffering and carnage.

Brett
sounds good mate, but what usually happens is that 'mass public' anything gets hijacked by those with other agenda's. Its always easier to manipulate a moving ship than to get it going in the first place.

Terrorism is also state sanctioned, the existence of a service revolver on the hip of any Policemen is intended to instill 'terror' in would be offenders.

Those pushing the 'terrorism' bandwagon at the moment are just looking for a word which will not offend the large muslim minorities if they called it 'Islamic fundamentalism' which most of it actually is.

Boaz David,

I recently joined this interesting site and been overwhelmed. Agree with your last comment, it is often ignored that Islamist fundamentalist initially targeted moderate muslims.

It was these same groups who assasinated the Egyptian president in 1981 and also attempted to kill modernisation in the Middle East. It is also the same groups who have been responsible for blowing up schools and buses. In 1996 and when fundamentalist islamist had prison and death sentences in Egypt (majority muslim country) , Zawahiry was free to wonder between London and Zurich.

The media would like us to believe that a)Terrorism only appeared on the Intl agenda after 9/11. b) it is targeting mainly westerners.

Facts are: a) it appeared in Egypt in 1920-1940, b) It targeted initially muslims (moderate and secular) and c) the 'export' of it flavour appeared recently since the soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

The war on Islamist fundamentalist can be only won by mainstream moderate muslims. Bombimg Iraq and Afganistan can win some headlines but will not win an ideology battle.

Ash